crispy4000

For me, it depends on more what the allegation is and who (and what) is backing it up. Like, I'll almost always believe a story about crunch, because this industry is so bad about it and it's not too hard to corroborate. Same with a sexist/racist studio culture, which can leave quite the paper trail in the digital age (ie: Blizzard, Moon Studios, etc). This should have been a slam dunk for her, if she could provide the receipts. Her initial claim about only being offered 4k was highly suspect from the start however.

Perhaps the final offer reflects that VO artists aren't paid enough, but she omitted some key details that Jason sleuthed out of her. No way she comes out of this looking good. This also looks really bad in retrospect: https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/sources-dispute-bayonetta-voice-actors-claims-over-pay-offer/

Check it near the end. AMD might need to get creative, but there could be some possibilities if devs work with them on character passes and the like.

I’d be surprised if anyone is perceiving major artifacting beyond 90fps, outside of screen caps and whatnot. Or maybe it has the same issues as Spider-Man if you’re playing KB&M and spaz out the player camera. Which is no dealbreaker at all for me.

Fair enough. I just think with 60fps still being a threshold the current consoles target (or fall short of), Flight Sim is the kind of exception that works out at DLSS3’s current quality. Other games at 60fps DLSS3, not so much. Asking again, what FPS are you averaging in Plauge’s Tale R?

Alex said that Flight Sim represents the type of motion that won’t show notable artifacting at 60fps. 3rd person games with looping animations are where the bigger problems lie, and don’t resolve convincingly (to his eyes) until roughly 80fps. I don’t doubt that you aren’t perceiving any errors in Plauge’s Tale Requiem. It’s subjective to some degree. Did you mention what FPS you’re averaging? That matters quite a bit here.

I was merely stating reasons it might not work out in practice when it seemingly does on paper. Flight Sim.

Did you watch Alex discuss this in DF’s video? Not a typical use case.

That’s the thing, it’s theoretical. Think about a 30fps presentation where only 1 in 6 frames is generated. Would it be noticeable? What about 40fps on a vrr screen? FPS itself could be a huge factor in what can trick our eyes convincingly. As is the type of motion in a game itself. This is completely uncharted territory. All we know for sure is that 60fps with half the frames generated isn’t really there (right now) for 3rd person action games.

On paper it’s not. But I question if this has more to do with how the human eye perceives motion at high framerates. If DLSS3 perceptively show flaws below 80fps currently, just having fewer AI generated frames at 60fps doesn’t mean the issue could be completely resolved. I don’t want to notice clear artifacting at 60fps at all ideally. Not merely notice there’s a few less of them but the problem persists.

Could it even work like that, with a 1.5x boost? I could see 1 in every 3 frames being generated as sort of a quality mode. But I’d want some improvements to the algorithm with it to better fix dirty frames. Otherwise, similar problems, just more flickery.

I’m still skeptical that we can get to a 30 to 60fps presentation where generated frames don’t present hard to ignore issues in motion. Really hoping Nvidia figures it out. If they do, I’ll get a 40 series card eventually.

Medium being sub-HD at moments has more to do with them rendering two viewpanes simultaneously than anything else. We’ll see what happens going forward regardless. If Series S games start looking more like what we’d expect from One S in terms of resolution/fps, I don’t think a supposed mandate would be that strict. There’s also FSR 2.0 to consider. Could be that the discussion shifts to degrees of artifacting, more so than raw pixel counts and fps consistency.

I’m not saying it could be okay with Microsoft. I’d just wager they haven’t had to deal with that problem yet. We’re only just now nearing the end of cross-gen. The Medium is an example of a Series S game dropping sub-HD. I’d contend its very existence as such is a sign that there is no hard and fast resolution mandate. If there is no limit… how low can you go depends on the developer’s sense.

I don’t think we should presume that there are FPS/Resolution standards for Series S when MS has publicly said there isn’t for Series X. No dev is coming out to say anything to the contrary, in spite of complaining about the hardware. Those two things shouldn’t be conflated. This is why I brought up The Medium’s resolution dips. Wouldn’t 720p be some kind of hard limit if there was one? We haven’t seen many Series S games dip that low yet regardless. There would appear to be some wiggle room.

The only mandate we know is that games have to ship on Series S.

One thing that does make me worried is that Nvidia’s implementation has perceptible artifacting below 80fps output. (According to DF) That’s not good enough to help consoles IMO. Or 60fps minded PC gamers. We still have a ways to go.

Here’s a wild historical article on topic: LucasArts' 60FPS Force Unleashed II tech demo WWW.EUROGAMER.NET At the recent SIGGRAPH 2010, LucasArts coder Dmitry Andreev showed off a quite remarkable tech demo based on work he ca… Could be possible without AI. We could have seen it two generations ago.

I wonder if there’s any sort of mandate at all. We’ve seen so much variation already. The marketing idea of the console being a 1440p machine was never enforced either. Microsoft has also said they have no resolution/FPS requirements for Series X.

Give or take. The One S was already showing troubles keeping up ~2-3 years after it launched. That might actually be the better metric here, relative to the expectations Microsoft is creating for S hardware. I think the industry at large will stop prioritizing Series S optimization after the cross-gen period is over. Games will continue to release for it, but DF and the like will say it feels like it’s being ignored, even when games will still technically run on it. (Not unlike launch Xbox One units, which haven’t been treated as a baseline for sometime now) I’m with you, but doubt that’s the path they’ll take. They’ve already added a 3rd underpowered SKU once before.

I think it’s also possible that Microsoft introduces a Series S+ somewhere along the line, to make developers a little happier. That’s be a nice way to handwave off the current Series S’ problems, and is a strategy they’ve used before.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if we agreed. I'd be arguing with you the same if you took his stance. Stop marginalizing my opinions because of a disagreement? Thanks. No one wants their game to run like shit on a spec a bunch of people will inevitably experience it on. We don't disagree there. But when I look at the way developers treated the Xbox One by the generation's end, I think the industry as a whole will show by action that they don't care as much these individual developers speaking out. The same pattern should repeat. Series S will be "supported" in the loosest sense possible given the power differential. Look at one of those statements: No doubt they won't be completely counteracted. Some devs will split hairs over it and agonize over Series S optimizations to get it looking the best it can. But at some point, just like the One, the industry will move forward in spite of Series S. The idea of 'complete' parity at lower resolutions was always a nonstarter for it.

Agreed, but that’s in the past now. Devs are allowed to make it an afterthought, so long as they release a build of some fashion. Microsoft allowed Xbox One games to run poorly at low res, no reason to think it’d be a step too far for Series S games to find themselves in that spot. Again, we’ve already seen sub 720p on it. This is an ‘S’ console, they’ve conditioned us on what to expect.

No developer should be designing for the Series S spec in specific unless it’s the explicit goal of the project to make a game that runs great for it. Just like Riot does for old PCs. Or many indies do on Switch. IMO, Series S should be more akin to the Deck, where games might run well on it, but can’t always be expected to because it’s not the target. AAA developers will (and probably should) treat it like an afterthought.

Yes, I know. Some developers would like it dropped because they don't want to have to deal with it, think it'll limit them, etc. As I've said, it's only as much of a limiting factor as they choose it to be. Not unlike a potato PC. Any developer making a game with specifically with Series S in mind is either going to fall behind the curve, or already is.